I tend to believe that in 2006 when this proclamation was made, LM intent was to deliver an F-35 that generally met these criteria outline by them and as US taxpayers, this is what we were to pay for:
George Standridge, VP of Business Development of Lockheed Martin predicted in 2006 that the F-35 will be four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective in air-to-ground combat, and three times more effective in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses – while having better range and requiring less logistics support and having around the same procurement costs (if development costs are ignored) as legacy fighters. The design goals call for the F-35 to be the premier strike aircraft through 2040 and to be second only to the F-22 Raptor in air superiority.
The question remains, are we getting what Mr. Standridge predicted we would receive or was that false advertising?
Dr. Thompson receives money from L/M, Boeing and other defense contractors supporting the cost to run his blog and institute that he established. Of course he would be pro F-35, would he bite off the hand that feeds him? If Boeing had won the contract, he would be on the Boeing horse praising their offering. That is what the industry pays him to do and he plays the game quite well.